6 ms·

Well guns don't do anything on their own, people do. Organizations of people overthrow governments. I think access to violence is important for the success of s

Well guns don't do anything on their own, people do. Organizations of people overthrow governments. I think access to violence is important for the success of such organizations as the past has shown. I think your examples of the governments sieging individuals who refused to bend to its will just demonstrate what kind of resistance fails to threaten the government. The only way to resist a tyrannical government is to fight for the destruction of the structural institutions that enable tyranny. You can't get a government to back off. A government's purpose is to perpetuate itself and increase the scope of its power. No matter how long you try to hold out against it, it will persistently attempt to subjugate you or lose its patience and destroy you. One thing i haven't heard explained in detail by people who justify the 2nd amendment as a safeguard against tyranny is what conditions they personally think justify armed insurrection against the government. There's a lot of abstract support for it, but how could you support insurrection in the abstract without knowing which concrete circumstances would cause you to take up arms against the government? How many pro-gun rights people are down with leftists who want to dismantle capitalism, for example? What about right-wingers who want to do away with liberal values? I think abstract arguments for gun rights, like abstract arguments for free speech are terribly inadequate compared to concrete values.

jonstokes 10y ago
One of the most interesting things about the gun rights community is how strenuously this exact question of "where do you draw the bright line that, once crossed, you'll rise up?" is avoided. You know how that guy took that video of himself asking anti-abortion protestors, "if abortion is murder, then shouldn't we put women who procure abortions on trial for murder?" and they all just short-circuited, like they'd never even thought of the question before? And how Trump stepped in it when he suggested that women who procure abortions should be punished? The "ok, so exactly when do you plan on using that thing, and with what group (because we all know you're not going to fight tyranny by yourself)?" questions are sort of like that, but for pro-gun people. They either haven't really thought it through that far, or they're not willing to talk about it, or both. FWIW, I think many gun rights people have the same delusion about guns as anti-gun people, and that's this: a gun in the hands of an individual is a thing of immense, Godlike power for mass destruction. The pro-gun people are all <boromir>We can use this power for good</boromir>, and the anti-gun people are all <gandalf>drop that ring!</gandalf>. But where they both go wrong is at the heart of what you've pointed out: guns are an effective political force only when wielded by organized groups towards a specific set of goals. Everyone just having a gun in their closet is about as effective as everyone just going out and voting (without having a party or a plan). You can do that and feel like you've got some power, but you're not actually changing anything or threatening the status quo. It's just a political fantasy that you're buying into.
- daxorid 10y ago
  Indeed. Which is why the widespread social stigmatizing and LEA spying of militia membership is so very effective, and so very worrisome. No reasonable organized resistance could ever arise in the US, as it stands - even if despotism took hold.
  - mwfunk 10y ago
    Militias do a fantastic job of socially stigmatizing themselves, no government plots required for that one at least.
- RyJones 10y ago
  I don't disagree with your most of your points, and I would go further: most gun owners are buying fashion items without any intention to use them, ever, in any way. I suspect there is another reason to consider about reticence to discuss where the line is and what exactly the plan is once crossed: the POR against insurgency is find, fix, and destroy [0] and there has been plenty of domestic [1] practice. Why make yourself an easy target? So, to your first point that they haven't thought about it meaningfully, I agree. Fashion items. [0] http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-07-22/ch3-iii.htm http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/f... [1] http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2015/05/18/407665820/why-did-we-forget-the-move-bombing http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2015/05/18/407665820/... etc
  - Frondo 10y ago
    "most gun owners are buying fashion items"--thank you, I've never seen it better said. As for where the line is drawn, well, I think the biggest reason people don't want to draw any such lines is because the US government isn't a tyranny and isn't heading there in any way. One of the biggest political issues in recent times is, of course, health care, but can you imagine how stupid it would come off as to try and lead a revolution against mandatory health insurance? Likewise for every other hot-button issue--armed revolution because now gay marriage is a thing? Because it's harder to find incandescent light bulbs? Mandated gas mileage improvements? Wherever you'd draw the line and not have it be 100% asinine, it'd be so far from reality that even declaring "here and no further" would make you look dumb.

jonstokes 10y ago

One of the most interesting things about the gun rights community is how strenuously this exact question of "where do you draw the bright line that, once crossed, you'll rise up?" is avoided. You know how that guy took that video of himself asking anti-abortion protestors, "if abortion is murder, then shouldn't we put women who procure abortions on trial for murder?" and they all just short-circuited, like they'd never even thought of the question before? And how Trump stepped in it when he suggested that women who procure abortions should be punished? The "ok, so exactly when do you plan on using that thing, and with what group (because we all know you're not going to fight tyranny by yourself)?" questions are sort of like that, but for pro-gun people. They either haven't really thought it through that far, or they're not willing to talk about it, or both. FWIW, I think many gun rights people have the same delusion about guns as anti-gun people, and that's this: a gun in the hands of an individual is a thing of immense, Godlike power for mass destruction. The pro-gun people are all <boromir>We can use this power for good</boromir>, and the anti-gun people are all <gandalf>drop that ring!</gandalf>. But where they both go wrong is at the heart of what you've pointed out: guns are an effective political force only when wielded by organized groups towards a specific set of goals. Everyone just having a gun in their closet is about as effective as everyone just going out and voting (without having a party or a plan). You can do that and feel like you've got some power, but you're not actually changing anything or threatening the status quo. It's just a political fantasy that you're buying into.

daxorid 10y ago
Indeed. Which is why the widespread social stigmatizing and LEA spying of militia membership is so very effective, and so very worrisome. No reasonable organized resistance could ever arise in the US, as it stands - even if despotism took hold.
- mwfunk 10y ago
  Militias do a fantastic job of socially stigmatizing themselves, no government plots required for that one at least.
RyJones 10y ago
I don't disagree with your most of your points, and I would go further: most gun owners are buying fashion items without any intention to use them, ever, in any way. I suspect there is another reason to consider about reticence to discuss where the line is and what exactly the plan is once crossed: the POR against insurgency is find, fix, and destroy [0] and there has been plenty of domestic [1] practice. Why make yourself an easy target? So, to your first point that they haven't thought about it meaningfully, I agree. Fashion items. [0] http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-07-22/ch3-iii.htm http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/f... [1] http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2015/05/18/407665820/why-did-we-forget-the-move-bombing http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2015/05/18/407665820/... etc
- Frondo 10y ago
  "most gun owners are buying fashion items"--thank you, I've never seen it better said. As for where the line is drawn, well, I think the biggest reason people don't want to draw any such lines is because the US government isn't a tyranny and isn't heading there in any way. One of the biggest political issues in recent times is, of course, health care, but can you imagine how stupid it would come off as to try and lead a revolution against mandatory health insurance? Likewise for every other hot-button issue--armed revolution because now gay marriage is a thing? Because it's harder to find incandescent light bulbs? Mandated gas mileage improvements? Wherever you'd draw the line and not have it be 100% asinine, it'd be so far from reality that even declaring "here and no further" would make you look dumb.